User:Little.fishy.123/Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia/Adev04! Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

I am peer reviewing Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia (Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia) by AllieFran, Little.fishy.123, Sarahrizvi20

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise with the appropriate summary of the article. No extra information is added that isn't found in the rest of the article. I feel as though the lead could include a bit more information such as the date of the case/issue, or who were the parties involved. Otherwise, this is a good lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content directly focuses on the court case. It includes the background as well as the results of the trial. I also appreciate that Aboriginal Title is defined and explained. One possible suggestion would be to include more information. Maybe you could find examples of how this case was applied in later situations? How is this seen as an achievement or milestone for Indigenous peoples? Or find criticisms/opinions of the court case from either the Indigenous perspective or the forestry/provincial perspective? How did the court case go in both lower courts and Court of Appeal? Maybe this could tie into Aboriginal rights in the Constitution or in UNDRIP?

I also really like the little textbox that has the pertinent information of the case! Maybe some of this information could be used in the main content of the article such as the names of the justices.

The article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics as it discuss Aboriginal title and traditional land ownership.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Reading this article, I did not feel as though the information was provided in a biased way, as it seems just the facts and details were presented. Great job on keeping neutral. I guess if I had to pick a side that is underrepresented, it would be that no perspectives of Indigenous peoples were given. The article is balanced where there are not any sections which go into more detail than others.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Not many sources were used for this article, only two were used and cited numerous times. I am not sure of what the available literature is on this topic, but it might be beneficial to find more secondary sources that reflect more opinions/perspectives or facts about this case and its outcomes. Having more diversity in authors and types of sources would also strengthen the reference list. The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is very clear and easy to read. It follows a logical and chronological layout, which makes it easy to understand the events. One suggestion would maybe to move Aboriginal Title section to follow the Background section? That way, when it is discussed in the Courts section, the reader already has knowledge on what Aboriginal Title is. There are no apparent errors in grammar or spelling. Great organization!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article contains one image of the Supreme Court of Canada. This makes sense as this is where the trial was held. Other than this, it does not relate to the specific court case. The image is well captioned. If possible, more images could be appealing, such as images of the the Tsilhqot'in First Nation or the forestry company.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

The article does not meet the Notability requirements as the sources listed deal directly with the topic of the article. The list of sources is not very exhaustive and could use more references to other diverse literature. The layout of the article does follow the patterns of similar articles with the headings, the Contents, the Infobox as well as the See Also, Further Reading, and External links sections, which are nice touches. Other articles are linked for further reading which helps to understand terms and concepts in this article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This is a good article that relays pertinent information of the court case. I learned about the process of this case, and was not confused at any point. I do feel more details could be beneficial to get a more well-rounded comprehension, and to understand different perspectives on the whole situation. Good work and thanks for the read!!